I decided to write this article when I once again saw on the news that some singer that I don't even know (but one that is very popular and that has nothing to do with politics) has made some political commentary that was controversial. I was very much tired of it and it didn't even matter whether I have agreed with it or not. This article is about why it's a bad practice for an artist to make any of their political opinions public in this way
First of all, an artist isn't the same as a politic - it's easy to see that these two fields are very much different and unlike one another. Interpersonal, private communications that artists usually focus on and massive, impersonal, almost alien structures and constructs that political figures are gravitated towards have nothing in common
Art, good art at least, by my definition is objective. Narrators shouldn't say their author's opinions, characters shouldn't appear just to humiliate someone in real life and should make sense, the paintings should have meaning, and music should aim to make a point. Obviously nothing can be 100% objective and there is some bias, but the fact that perfection doesn't exist doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for it, obviously art can break laws of phisics, obviously art can use historical and political events as its canvas - War and Peace is actually a great example at that: while it might have some bias and even political views in it, this part is so small, it doesn't make the book automatically bad (although the entire war part was kind of for hype). In the same way being skilled at something doesn't automatically make you an artist in my eyes. Someone who does beautiful scenery, or masterfully writes rhymes isn't an artist per se. I can appreciate the skill and time it took to make something, but I wouldn't call this truly a work of art. For it to be a work of art it needs to have meaning (or the Final Clause as seen in Aristotle's teachings), it needs to be objective. If an artist directly puts their political opinion into one of their creations, it ultimately becomes subjective, which ruins it.
Now you can make a counterargument with artists whos sole point is to make something political, the most famous example being George Orwell. Sure, you can do it! He was specialised in that area and it was his nieche - he knew what he was writing about and was skillful about it. The same goes for black people that write their own autobiography and how opressed they were. Once again, it's their nieche - they're not hiding that they're discussing politics, it's plain as day. Can a non-political artist suddenly make a very political one-off and succeed? Well, maybe, sure, but one needs to fit the other criteria of making it logically consistent and not arbitrary. For example Tolsoy in "Ressurection" critiques the jurisdictional system at the time. Not only is this not the main point of the book, but it's also easily proven by logic - it's simply inevitable that it will have flaws and his critique is valid and proven (in fact some of the witnessed horrors inside the book are facts). Yes, it also has bias in it, but again perfection isn't possible and while you might dislike the conclusion, he comes to it with proofs and through a character's natural actions, and consider that it isn't even a purely political book! Discussing politics outside of art as an artist is also bad. Sure, they're "influencers", but they should influence people through objective art, not through subjective opinions and definetly not by corrupting art with their personal thoughts
This is why my respect to an artist instantly drops to zero when I see that they either directly discuss politics within their creations or outside of them. For example, Bulgakov's "Heart of the dog" is purely political and has no reason to exist beyond that. So basically that is just pushing his political beliefs without proof to the audience (the fact that the idea of a "different man" didn't work is purely his writing choice. I am not disagreeing with him though). While it's cleverly written, I dislike it, since it's just political agenda in disguise. While it is a way to discuss politics, humiliating the other party without proving anything is rather counter-productive and the only thing it does it that it gets your view across in a form of "art". And as I stated in the description of the article, this applies to religion and interpersonal communcations through art as well. While I lack a coherent example for religious agenda (although there are many films that downplay religion), I have some for interpersonal communications, one of which being Mayakovsky. His many works are deeply personal and subjective, for example he has a strict definition of love that doesn't match mine. In my opinion what he is expiriencing is simply perpetular infatuation and not love and this doesn't let me fully enjoy his works because he claims that it's love, but I view it as false. Were this objective, this issue wouldn't arise as we would both see things through our subjective lenses. I am not saying that I don't feel anything when reading his poetry, but it always throws me off and I believe that this subjectivity makes it less of an art. More intimate, more true, more intense - sure, but not more in the sense of teaching readers something or being objective. In fact, I view him (and some other artists, Van Gogh for example) as more of historical figures whos life can be viewed in a way that no other person's life can be viewed. The same can be said about Kuprin, although he is much, much worse in that sense. He is the king of subjective art
The last thing that I wanted to say is that this doesn't mean that I think artists should be apolitical or avoid political situations in art altogether. They can have their political opinion and even include political situations in art. But they shouldn't push political agenda or discuss real life politics unless that's what they specialise in. They can make all the political art they want as long as it it's objective. And they can contribute politically, of course, but doing that not through objective art is just discounting yourself